URGENT: REDHAT 6.1 STORES SAMBA PRIVATE FILES IN /etc

[Chris Tooley]

As requested by this Matthew I downloaded the FHS
(http://www.fokus.gmd.de/linux/lxstnd/fhs/fhs.txt)
and read through it.  It says on page 8:

END RATIONALE/
-- the root directory|
+-bin       Essential command binaries
+-boot      Static files of the boot loader
+-dev       Device files
+-etc       Host-specific system configuration
+-home      User home directories
+-lib       Essential shared libraries and kernel modules
+-mnt       Mount point of temporary partitions
+-opt       Add-on application software packages
+-root      Home directory for the root user
+-sbin      Essential system binaries
+-tmp       Temporary files
+-usr       Secondary hierarchy
+-var       Variable data

I point you to the line about etc.  Later on it goes on to discuss in more
detail what should go into each of these directories, and what
"Host-specific system configuration" means.

Again, I would like to say that I in no way want the Samba Team to take what
I'm saying as negative.  No matter what, I will continue to use Samba for as
long as I am allowed to, no matter where the config files are.  So please
take this as support for the opinion I had.

Thank you for the work,

Chris Tooley

----Original Message-----
From: samba-ntdom at samba.org [mailto:samba-ntdom at samba.org]On Behalf Of
Matthew Geddes
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 4:23 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list SAMBA-NTDOM
Subject: Re: URGENT: REDHAT 6.1 STORES SAMBA PRIVATE FILES IN /etc


Chris Tooley wrote:

>         I would like to say that I in no way would want the samba team to
think
> that I don't absolutely LOVE the work they have done, it has save our
Museum
> from going into debt to have a PDC running.
>
>         However, I would like to say that from what I've seen of Linux and
other
> UNIX's it is definitely more appropriate for config files for programs to
go
> into it's own directory under /etc/.  My roommate and I have heated
> discussions on occassion, him being a Sun Sys Admin and I working
primarily
> with Linux, over where installed files should be, but I just can't defend
> the fact that there isn't a common ground on where the config files are
> supposed to be at.

I was under the impression that the Linux File System Standard had something
to say
about this. I must admit though, it has been a while since I read it.

Matt